Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If the TOS designers had had any inkling that we fans would be scrutinizing decals applied to a model kit 45 years after the fact, and if they had had any foreknowledge of Internet-era lingo, then I suspect Constellation's registry number would have been made from two decal sets, with 7s inverted, resulting in a number of NCC-L0L.

Or they might have not shown the registry number at all, just having that section of the ship be one of the parts blown off by the planet killer.

 

[CharlieZardoz]

I think the answer to this question is that either A. The Constitution was not 1700 (as there is no evidence onscreen stating it was maybe 900 or 1000) or B. that the Constitution was 1700 and that each series had its own class name which was never disclosed 1000,1300,1600 etc as Jefferies and Jein seem to indicate in their commentaries making Enterprise series IX DSC. Remember back in the days of the old series there was no thought given to different starship classes looking different from one another. Class could have denoted service specifications. Even the Daedalus did not exist as an idea until TNG times (the model was based on a rejected idea for the enterprise right?). My only issue with this is that old sources claim only like 12/13 connies in existence and I'm sure they were talking about Potempkin, Constellation, Intrepid, etc. with registries lower than Constitution and not some 12 other ships. The third possible option is that Constellation and older ships had been refitted to look like Constitution class starships some time before the original series takes place.

To be honest of the 3 choices I tend to support the simpler explanation that Jein was wrong and that they are all Constitution class ships and that the original connies could have started somewhere in the 900's with the series constantly evolving what the Enterprise actually was as episodes aired. It's been a while was it ever said explicitly in the series how many connies there were? If so that doesn't mean that's as many as there ever were obviously

 

[Robert Comsol]

Jefferies and Jein seem to indicate in their commentaries making Enterprise series IX DSC.

I think you are mistaking (Franz) Joseph for (Matt) Jefferies. Joseph and Jein obviously interpreted the "Mark IX/01" annotation in the primary phaser schematic (both Khan and Scotty were looking at) not to refer to the type of primary phaser but to the kind of starship it belonged to although the other annotation made it abundantly clear that this phaser belonged to a "starship" of a "Constitution Class".

Even the Daedalus did not exist as an idea until TNG times (the model was based on a rejected idea for the enterprise right?).

That is both correct.

It's been a while was it ever said explicitly in the series how many connies there were? If so that doesn't mean that's as many as there ever were obviously

In "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" Kirk told Captain Christopher that there were "only 12 like it [the Enterprise].
Dorothy Fontana interpreted that line as ultimate when suggesting to come up with names, but "continuity guru" Bob Justman replied that she was suggesting to come up for the 12 ships of the "Enterprise Starship Class". Obviously neither him and Roddenberry objected ("there are more than 12"), thus it's 12 Enterprise Class starships at the time of TY.

Further reading of The Making of Star Trek suggests that the Producers, indeed, only envisioned 12 Enterprise Class starships and that's were Greg Jein got the idea for his treatise from.

Of course, he never considered the possibility that there might be 12 Enterprise Class starships and an unkown number of Constitution Class starships. Instead he made them all "Constitution Class" and that's where the headaches began.

Bob

 

[CharlieZardoz]

Cool thanks for the insight! The joy (and possible frustration) of Star Trek lore was that not everything was explained thus giving that mythos where you want to fill in the blanks with conjecture. Problem is it seems even those working within Trek tried to do this and some cases didn't have the answers themselves or made matters worse by adding contradictions. So yeah it does seem likely that while only 12 ships "like the Enterprise" exist, there were likely many more ships which looked just like her and we will never really know the answer as to when the design first started and how many were ever truly built. That's quite fine by me though I'm happy to conclude that the original USS Constitution may have had a registry as far back as the 900's and that ships of this design might have been churning out for decades. It would go a long way to explain why by the 24th century it had been phased out while the Miranda kept going as that design was still new in the 2280's.

BTW I'd love to find further reading on this if possible as I'm sure I can't be the first person to come to these conclusions.

 

[Robert Comsol]

That's quite fine by me though I'm happy to conclude that the original USS Constitution may have had a registry as far back as the 900's and that ships of this design might have been churning out for decades. It would go a long way to explain why by the 24th century it had been phased out while the Miranda kept going as that design was still new in the 2280's.

Well, if you want to interpret the primary phaser schematic as belonging to a Mark IX/01 starship (i.e. NCC-901) you'd be doing much, much better than Greg Jein who interpreted IX/01 as the Enterprise. (wouldn't that be XVII/01 ?).

And you could use the Operation Retrieve chart from ST VI referring to NCC-956 (USS Eagle, Constitution Starship II Class silhouette).

Of course, according to Matt Jefferies, the TOS Enterprise was the first bird of the 17th starship design series, but what makes these design differences (exterior and/or interior) is completely up to our interpretation.

BTW I'd love to find further reading on this if possible as I'm sure I can't be the first person to come to these conclusions.

I think we already presented the available facts in various threads, there is not that much more, I'm afraid.

According to my general life experience never assume that somebody has come up with this or that conclusion before. For example I'm not aware that some of my "radical" conclusions have been discussed before (e.g. deck numbering distinction between main decks and engineering decks of the TOS Enterprise).

Bob

 

[Lieut. Arex]

isn't it time for someone to break out the ouji board and get the answer?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't know why people keep thinking the Eagle is Constitution class just because of the Operation Retrieve chart. The silhouette of a Connie was just used as a generic icon for any starship. The real ship doesn't have to be of that class.

 

[Robert Comsol]

^^ Yes, you are right. The Excelsior has the same unmistakable shape as the Enterprise-A on the Operation Retrieve chart, therefore it stands to reason that any Federation ship would have that kind of generic icon.

Bob

 

[CharlieZardoz]

I don't know why people keep thinking the Eagle is Constitution class just because of the Operation Retrieve chart. The silhouette of a Connie was just used as a generic icon for any starship. The real ship doesn't have to be of that class.

I think it's because the Eagle was originally considered a Constitution class starship based on Greg Jein's starship list way back when (associated with registry 1685 on that list). I'm pretty sure those who made the operation retrieve chart weren't thinking "hey that ship is supposed to be a connie with a registry of xxxx" so they gave it a low number and yes it could technically be any ship type since we never saw it onscreen and Greg's list is not canon. However since the Eagle has been associated with the connie type and 956 isn't too far from 1017 (Constellation) which is obviously a connie (yes I know why they did that) all the evidence suggests the Constitution class starship line began pretty early in the registries 900/800/700 even? That suits me fine though as it means the first Connie's would have been built in the early 23rd century or even late 22nd century rather than the 2240's and also why by the 24th century they were considered obsolete and phased out while the Miranda class (1800+) was still serviceable.

Also I don't believe that many other ship designs existed in the original trek series era since when it came out the only real "starship" design the creators envisioned looked just like the Enterprise. It was only in later years that the show creators added earlier ship designs like Daedalus, Oberth, Antares and NX Enterprise. So for me really any ship from ncc 700-1800 (when the Miranda line began) could most likely be a connie and while no I have no evidence it just feels right

 

[F. King Daniel]

Well, since you did bring it up Constitutions with 700 registries... Click!

 

[blssdwlf]

LOL, I'm glad that was a deleted scene

 

[CharlieZardoz]

Woah that's awesome! Though let me say I just don't get the "0" in front of three digit numbers. I mean in that case it should be two zero's if we take into account next generation era registries lol.

 

[137th Gebirg]

It would have been a nice tip of the hat to TOS, but it just doesn't make any sense in the alternate timeline. It simply doesn't fit with the newly established ship design aesthetic that all the others possess, from Kelvin to Enterprise to Vengeance. I can see it having been on some designer's drafting table amongst a myriad other failed concepts, but I certainly can't see a studio-scale replica being built and looming ominously over a flag Admiral's office without seeing some indication that it might have been used in the fleet somewhere. This is especially considering all the "real" ships that we know have known to exist in that timeline (before and after the split) are nothing more than comparatively tiny desktop models behind him. Nothing about the picture makes any logical sense and, yes, it does look fake.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I suspect it's supposed to be holographic, like the floating torpedoes Marcus showed Kirk and Spock, or the video phone in the deleted scene of Marcus receiving Harewood's message.

0718 is important to someone high up, since the number appeared on a Newton-type ship at Starbase 1 (which had a TOS-style bridge dome and red bussard collectors) and as the final name of Joseph Gatt's cybernetic character (previously GATT2000), Science Officer 0718.

 

[Nob Akimoto]

Presumably it's a birthday like with Kelvin's registry.

 

[Captain Jed R.]

The hell? Is that picture of Marcus under an original Constitution genuine? If so, that's crazy. On about six levels. Magnificent, but crazy.

Also the final 0718 is odd, as not only is it grey not lightish brown like most Abrams ship stuff, it also has the TOS details. I'm torn between being pleased at the TOS stylings and thinking it doesn't fit with the new aesthetic, but the former's definitely winning.

The registries thing with Consellation is odd, but I always took it that NCC numbers were production codes that were assigned as they freed up, but also moved upwards in a general way. Who knowshow NCC registries actually work: it might be registered by where and when built (like 1017th of the San Fran shipyard, 1701st of the San Fran shipyard) but that wouldn't account for the A, B, C or D, unless they were being filed as replacements for production code 1701 regardless of where/when built.

 

[CharlieZardoz]

Can anyone make out the name on that ship?

 

[137th Gebirg]

It seems to be USS Biddeford. As in, most likely, Biddeford, Maine. Someone on the production staff was likely born there.

 

[publiusr]

I hope there are more shots of that ship. I rather like it--but for TOS fan fic use only...